Comments on: NOM must disclose donors http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:59:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: TN http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118584 TN Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:46:29 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118584 What happens if they ignore it? How far does this go? I mean, can Brian and Maggie get arrested? I don't think any reasonable DA would do that so they really don't have to release anything. What happens if they ignore it? How far does this go? I mean, can Brian and Maggie get arrested? I don’t think any reasonable DA would do that so they really don’t have to release anything.

]]> By: blue-heron http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118575 blue-heron Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:45:54 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118575 This appears to be nowhere in the Mainstream [Straight] News. Let's ask them to cover the story: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/show/?s=storyidea editorial@thedailybeast.com This appears to be nowhere in the Mainstream [Straight] News.

Let’s ask them to cover the story:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/show/?s=storyidea

editorial@thedailybeast.com

]]> By: TampaZekex http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118564 TampaZekex Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:33:50 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118564 @Theo, great point! @Theo, great point!

]]> By: Theo http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118552 Theo Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:13:58 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118552 Kincaid, your post is off. The case was about whether the Maine election law was constitutional, not whether NOM is required to disclose its donors. If NOM had won on the constitutionality issue, it definitely wouldn't have to disclose. Since it lost, it may have to disclose. The Maine elections commission will now decide that issue. BTW, I do wish someone on the planet other than me would take notice of the outrageous hypocrisy of NOM's suit. For years, NOM has been railing against unelected judges in CA who thwart the will of the people. But in Maine, NOM demanded that an unelected federal judge strike down Maine's Clean Election Act, which was passed by ballot initiative in 1998. The vote was 56%-44%, a greater margin than was achieved by Prop 8 or Question 1. Apparently, sometimes it is alright for unelected judges to overrule the people. Kincaid, your post is off. The case was about whether the Maine election law was constitutional, not whether NOM is required to disclose its donors. If NOM had won on the constitutionality issue, it definitely wouldn’t have to disclose. Since it lost, it may have to disclose. The Maine elections commission will now decide that issue.

BTW, I do wish someone on the planet other than me would take notice of the outrageous hypocrisy of NOM’s suit. For years, NOM has been railing against unelected judges in CA who thwart the will of the people. But in Maine, NOM demanded that an unelected federal judge strike down Maine’s Clean Election Act, which was passed by ballot initiative in 1998. The vote was 56%-44%, a greater margin than was achieved by Prop 8 or Question 1. Apparently, sometimes it is alright for unelected judges to overrule the people.

]]> By: mark in washington http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118548 mark in washington Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:46:59 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118548 This issue has already been decided in Washington state. Those persons signing initiative petitions are signing a public document. Similarly those donating to an initiative in any way shape or form are also not shielded. This issue has already been decided in Washington state. Those persons signing initiative petitions are signing a public document. Similarly those donating to an initiative in any way shape or form are also not shielded.

]]> By: StraightGrandmother http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118523 StraightGrandmother Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:15:10 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118523 There is a guy named David who seems to be following this case closely. He is making really insightful comments at GoodAsYou http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/02/end-of-the-line-for-noms-maine-based-secrecy.html There is a guy named David who seems to be following this case closely. He is making really insightful comments at GoodAsYou

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/02/end-of-the-line-for-noms-maine-based-secrecy.html

]]> By: occono http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118512 occono Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:20:37 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118512 James, you really don't need to be cynical about this. The lack of action until now was because NOM appealed and appealed. Now, the situation is very different. James, you really don’t need to be cynical about this. The lack of action until now was because NOM appealed and appealed. Now, the situation is very different.

]]> By: werdna http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118511 werdna Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:45:19 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118511 Mmmm, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doner_kebab" rel="nofollow">doners</a> . Mmmm, doners .

]]> By: Bose in St. Peter MN http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118510 Bose in St. Peter MN Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:34:52 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118510 It has seemed clear to me that NOM has been gunning for a Supreme Court case that would add a second huge punch to <em>Citizens United</em>: That sources of unlimited funds should be permanently and irrevocably private, or at least private under some limited terms that would apply to NOM donors. Quite the slap in the face that the Supremes didn't even want to pick up the phone on this one, though. It has seemed clear to me that NOM has been gunning for a Supreme Court case that would add a second huge punch to Citizens United: That sources of unlimited funds should be permanently and irrevocably private, or at least private under some limited terms that would apply to NOM donors.

Quite the slap in the face that the Supremes didn’t even want to pick up the phone on this one, though.

]]> By: Ravenbiker http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/27/42448/comment-page-1#comment-118508 Ravenbiker Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:53:10 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42448#comment-118508 Gee, who doesn't kow this?: "As society is increasingly seeing the issue of marriage through the lens of fairness and justice, spending huge sums to bar gay people from full inclusion under civil law is increasingly seen as either based in malice or an allocation of funds that could have gone to a far better cause." It happens all the time. Gee, who doesn’t kow this?:

“As society is increasingly seeing the issue of marriage through the lens of fairness and justice, spending huge sums to bar gay people from full inclusion under civil law is increasingly seen as either based in malice or an allocation of funds that could have gone to a far better cause.”

It happens all the time.

]]>